DAVID E. SO, ON BEHALF OF HIS DAUGHTER MARIA ELENA SO GUISANDE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ESTEBAN A. TACLA, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANDALUYONG CITY, BRANCH 208; AND DR. BERNARD…

So versus Tacla

The Case

This is the case of So versus Tacla. David So, acting on behalf of his daughter Maria Elena So Guisande, asked the Supreme Court to issue the writs of habeas corpus and amparo against Judge Esteban Tacla of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City and Dr. Bernardo Vicente of the National Center for Mental Health. The daughter stood accused of Qualified Theft, a non-bailable offense, and had been ordered confined at the government hospital for a forensic assessment of her mental fitness to stand trial. The father claimed that her confinement was life-threatening and unlawful. The case matters because it teaches the threshold requirement for both extraordinary writs: the restraint or the threat must be illegal, and once the criminal case that gave rise to the confinement is dismissed, the petitions become moot and academic.

Procedural History

Before the criminal proceedings, the daughter had been committed by her father for psychiatric treatment at the Makati Medical Center, where her psychiatrist certified that she was not ready for discharge. Acting on the prosecution's urgent motion, Judge Tacla ordered her referral to the National Center for Mental Health for an independent forensic assessment. He later ordered that she be physically brought there, with Dr. Vicente having temporary legal custody, and that she be confined in a regular jail facility once the hospital determined she was ready for trial.

Claiming life-threatening circumstances at the hospital, the daughter filed a Motion for Relief from Solitary Confinement before the trial court, while she and her father separately filed the petition for habeas corpus and amparo before the Supreme Court. The trial court granted the motion, but allowed only her counsel and her physician on her thyroid condition to visit her. The Supreme Court issued a joint writ and referred the petition to the Court of Appeals for raffle, hearing, and decision. The Court of Appeals held a hearing, received the hospital's evaluation finding her competent to stand trial, and in an order rendered in open court transferred her to a hospital of her choice under the custody of the National Bureau of Investigation, with periodic reports to the trial court, and declared the petition closed and terminated. The Office of the Solicitor General then filed a petition for review on certiorari, which was consolidated with the habeas corpus and amparo petition. During the pendency of the consolidated cases, the trial court dismissed the criminal case upon the prosecutor's motion to withdraw the information, and the Solicitor General moved to dismiss the petitions as moot.

Facts

Maria Elena So Guisande was charged with Qualified Theft before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City. Before the charge was filed, her father had committed her for psychiatric treatment at the Makati Medical Center, where she was diagnosed with Bipolar Mood Disorder and certified as not ready for discharge. On the prosecution's motion, the trial court referred her to the National Center for Mental Health for an independent forensic assessment of whether she could be arraigned and tried.

The trial court later ordered her physically brought to the hospital, with its chief, Dr. Vicente, having temporary legal custody, and with confinement in a regular jail to follow once the hospital declared her ready for trial. She was confined in a regular payward rather than the forensic section, and the hospital issued a memorandum on handling court case patients to foreclose any possibility of malingering. Claiming that her confinement was life-threatening and violated her constitutional rights, she sought relief from solitary confinement before the trial court and, with her father, filed the petition for the writs of habeas corpus and amparo.

The hospital eventually reported that she was not manifesting signs of psychosis, understood the nature of the proceedings, could communicate with her counsel, and was competent to stand trial. The Court of Appeals then ordered her transfer to a hospital of her choice under the custody of the National Bureau of Investigation, with her physician reporting every fifteen days to the trial court, while ordering that her arraignment and trial proceed. Later, on the prosecutor's motion to withdraw the information, the trial court dismissed the criminal case, and the petitions were left without a live controversy.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitions for the writs of habeas corpus and amparo were rendered moot and academic by the dismissal of the criminal case for Qualified Theft against Guisande.
• Whether or not the confinement of Guisande at the National Center for Mental Health was illegal or unlawful, such that the writs should issue.
• Whether or not the referral of the accused to a government hospital for a forensic assessment of her mental fitness to stand trial was procedurally proper.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 102 of the Rules of Court on habeas corpus provides:

To what habeas corpus extends. Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.

This provision bears on the case because the writ reaches only illegal confinement, and the Court found no illegality in the hospital confinement ordered by the trial court.

Section 1 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo provides:

Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

This provision bears on the case because amparo likewise requires an unlawful act or omission, and the Court found none in the acts of the trial judge and the hospital chief.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court denied both petitions for being moot and academic. It reasoned that the petition for the writs rested on the criminal case for Qualified Theft, and with the dismissal of that non-bailable case, Guisande was no longer under peril of confinement in a jail facility or at the hospital. Her person and any treatment of her mental condition could no longer be subjected to the lawful processes of the trial court. The Court adopted the definition of a moot case as one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.

On the second issue, the Court held that the writs could not issue because the confinement was not illegal. Nowhere in the transcript of the hearing or in the order rendered in open court was the confinement declared unlawful, nor were the acts of the judge and the hospital chief in ascertaining her fitness for trial declared unlawful. The Court stressed that the act or omission complained of must be illegal or unlawful, and that habeas corpus is unavailing where liberty is restrained through some legal process. It quoted its earlier ruling:

The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that the individual seeking such relief is illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or place under some form of illegal restraint. If an individual's liberty is restrainted via some legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing.

On the third issue, the Court held that it was procedurally proper for the trial court to ask the government hospital for a separate opinion on the accused's mental fitness to be arraigned and to stand trial. It noted that the Court of Appeals correctly limited the question to which hospital she should be referred, and that in allowing her transfer, the appellate court kept her in the custody of the law, since she remained answerable for the non-bailable charge and was merely allowed to pursue treatment in a hospital and from a doctor of her choice.

Doctrine

First, the writ of habeas corpus extends only to illegal confinement or detention. Where a person is restrained through a legal process, such as a court order of confinement for forensic assessment, the writ will not issue. The petitioner must show an actual, effective, and unlawful restraint of liberty.

Second, the writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy available only where the right to life, liberty, and security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission. It must be resorted to judiciously, lest its purpose be diluted by indiscriminate filings based on unsubstantiated allegations.

Third, a case becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. The dismissal of the criminal case that gave rise to the confinement removes the legal basis for the restraint and renders the petitions moot.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the consolidated petitions for the writs of habeas corpus and amparo and for review on certiorari for being moot and academic, with no costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: both habeas corpus and amparo require an illegal or unlawful act, and a confinement under a valid court process will not support either writ. Examiners like to use this case to test the mootness doctrine and the threshold requisites for the extraordinary writs, especially where a supervening event such as the dismissal of the criminal case removes the restraint complained of.